Archive for enough about 2016

Last time I looked, the 2016 elections come AFTER the 2014 elections, which seems obvious to those of us who can count. And who own calendars. And who aren't news dee jays. And who don't have zillions of dollars available to influence elections, dollars that they slather all over their favorite candidates and causes. So who better to mock the premature 2016 election speculation glut than-- ta daa!-- Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

Per the Burlington Free Press, 72-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders is well aware of the immense challenges one must confront in order to make a presidential run. However-- and this took me by surprise after hearing him declare repeatedly that he would not run-- he recently dropped a hint that contradicted his previous denials:

Still, Sanders says he is willing to consider making a run if no one else with progressive views similar to his ends up taking the plunge.

It is essential, he said, to have someone in the 2016 presidential campaign who is willing to take on Wall Street, address the “collapse” of the middle class, tackle the spread of poverty and fiercely oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

But then he jolted us back in time to recollections of Ralph Nader's candidacies, which would mean jumping through hoops to get his name on the general election ballot in 50 states, not to mention being identified as "The Spoiler" candidate.

And don't get him started on the enormous demands of having to fundraise. He'd have nothing to do with corporate Wall Street money, which of course would whittle down his chances of raking in the big bucks.

And then there's that pesky "independent" label:

Sanders said if he does run, he would “probably” do so as an independent. It’s a label that has been of value to him in his statewide races but could become a complication as a presidential hopeful.“The disadvantages of being an independent are you not going to get in these big debates that you have on television,” he said. “But I’m very proud to be an independent.”

But then he added that he'd be "comfortable with an Elizabeth Warren presidential bid." Hey, so would a lot of people, including yours truly.

Elizabeth Warren’s former national finance chair, Paul Egerman, has told several inquiring donors this month that, despite runaway speculation and a burning desire from the party’s left wing, the freshman senator will not run for president in 2016. [...]

One Democratic fundraiser said he spoke with Egerman roughly two weeks ago... “It’s not gonna happen” [...]

Lacey Rose, Warren’s press secretary, gave BuzzFeed the following statement: “As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president,” Rose said.

Three attendees at last week’s Democracy Alliance meetings cautioned that there is already an understanding inside fundraising circles that Warren would not consider running unless Clinton bows out of the race — a possibility that looks increasingly unlikely...

Republicans are giddy about their chances to retake the Senate on the back of a disaster known as Obamacare. There's just one problem: The GOP doesn't have the right candidates to make it happen.

Sure, in the high-profile races of 2014, Republicans have recruited competitive contenders to take on red-state Democrats. But in the second-tier contests, the ones that could suddenly become competitive if the national mood turns increasingly toxic for Democrats, the GOP's cast of hopefuls ranges from the unknown to the unelectable.

The NJ described it as "the dearth of credible candidates." They nailed it. Why? Well, think about it: GOP credibility? Oxymoron.

The heck is going on here, people? Did someone drop the flag signaling the start of the 2016 Presidential election race in secret? Was there a furtive whispered “go now” left on the voice mail of all the major players in the 202 area code? 36 months before the election?

Is it possible to earn extra credit by skipping this one and moving right on to 2020?

The most recent media- consumed fever- dream boils down to Chris Christie versus Hillary Clinton. Although, two weeks ago, Ted Cruz was the presumptive GOP nominee. Didn’t Hillary use up her inevitability card in 2008? When she was destined to face off against Rudy Giuliani? How’d that end up?

But a lack of consistency hasn’t kept the talking heads from jabbering their HD faces off. Money is being raised. Polls conducted. Seriously? Can’t we wait until the midterms are over? Winter Olympics? Thanksgiving?

Predicting the nominees right now is like betting on what the weather will be like in Wisconsin in April. Ten years from now. If everyone is so damn clairvoyant, why don’t they throw some money down on lottery tickets? These modern day alchemists might be better off focusing their skills on spinning straw into gold.

A week in politics is a lifetime. A month is two eternities. But three years is like an afternoon at your great aunt’s, while uncle Harry with the mole on his nose that 4 inch hairs grow out of, shows slides of their recent trip to the Azores.
We’re not talking jumping the gun, this is more like jumping the application of the lane chalk. Think of all the stuff that could happen between now and 2016.

By the year 2016, Hillary Clinton could be on trial for domestic abuse.
By the year 2016, Chris Christie might have left politics for his one true love, the field of competitive eating.
By the year 2016, Joe Biden might have single-handedly pulled 6 Navy Seals out of a burning helicopter. And 2 puppies.
By the year 2016, the oceans could rise so high that California and Florida are totally taken out of the electoral equation.
By the year 2016, the Tea Party might be holding its annual convention in the banquet room of a Casper, Wyoming Applebee’s.
By the year 2016, the primaries may come down to whoever looks best in a full-body containment suit.
By the year 2016, Mitt Romney could very well have had a new user-friendly operating system installed.
By the year 2016, Elizabeth Warren might have resigned the Senate and moved to China to organize Apple workers.
By the year 2016, John Edwards could have found Jesus and rehabilitated himself. Probably not.
By the year 2016, Rick Perry, in the midst of another execution frenzy, may have accidentally signed an order resulting in his own.
By the year 2016, Sarah Palin might have said something so monumentally silly that her head exploded.
By the year 2016. Democrats might be holding their annual convention in the banquet room of a Cambridge, Massachusetts Olive Garden.
By the year 2016, Jeb Bush might change his last name to something less polarizing, like Hitler. Or Nixon.
By the year 2016, the city of Chicago could still be in flames from the celebration that followed the Cubs winning the World Series. Probably not.

Will Durst’s new one- man show “BoomeRaging: From LSD to OMG” in its final 4 shows: through Dec 17, Tuesdays at the Marsh. San Francisco. the Marsh. San Francisco. themarsh.org...Or willdurst.com to find his calendar.

Day in and day out, I watch, read, listen, and write about news. And because I do so much watching, reading, and listening. I tend to notice recurring themes. A major recurring theme is how much time the so-called "news" [sic] media spends on speculation.

Most of that speculation centers on the 2016 presidential election, focusing specifically on Hillary Clinton vs (currently) Chris Christie. Newsflash, "journalists": It's only 2013, and you started this endless loop of What Ifs the day after Election 2012. This is ludicrous. This is not news, this is meaningless filler and a shameless ploy used to pull in viewers.

And hey viewers, how about you stop enabling?

Then again, there is very little "real" news reporting any more, not since news departments became commercialized all those years ago. Not since it became all about profit, which news stories sell, which headlines attract ratings, and as a result, attract sponsors and their buckets of money.

But back to that nasty speculation habit. When you watch the "news" shows, you see them produce hours upon hours of What If about future elections, about the *gasp!* doomed fate of the Affordable Care Act, about which freedoms we might lose if we don't do something about some catastrophe that might or might not happen, about which new scandal *could* result from Darrell Issa's umpteenth witch hunt about absolutely everything/nothing.

Will CNN change its name to Comedy Central 2 when they become self aware enough to realize what a parody they've become? It's anybody's guess.

"Some say" cable news has crossed a line by being bought and paid for by right wing corporate cash monsters who find themselves more than a little obsessed with Christie, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Marsha Blackburn, Reince Priebus, Marco Rubio, John Boehner, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham. Could this spell trouble for attracting future investors? We'll have to wait and see.

"Anonymous sources" tell The Political Carnival that the glut of Big Pharma ads-- especially for Cialis-- that saturate cable news channels could lead to a revolt among increasingly hypochondriacal viewers, specifically bathtub owners. True? We can't say for sure.

We're hearing that air time spent on trivia-- like how many shoppers are lining up to buy the new iPhone, instead of on hard news stories-- could possibly-- we're speculating here-- cause riots among viewers with functioning brains. More on that as details emerge.

Rumors abound about the habit and practice of cable show hosts inviting other cable show hosts to provide commentary that they just gave on their own shows. Incestuous? Tweet us with your answers.

We're learning-- well, we've heard-- well, okay, we overheard-- that cable news viewers are about to retaliate en masse over all the in-house backslapping, "my friend" references, "be safe" cautions, and insufferable book plugs. True or false? At this point, we can only make an educated guess.